Hitler Wanted to Exterminate the Jews
Debate Rounds (3)
He begins his argument immediately. Good luck.
I thank my opponent for creating this debate topic, Con has revised the BoP to “Hitler wanted to Kill Most of the Jews in Germany.” As long as I can prove that Hitler wanted to exterminate the majority of Jews in Germany, I win. I will do so by providing numerous quotes and speeches from Hitler that show his intent; to exterminate the Jews in Germany.
I would like to warn beforehand that some of these quotes are revolting and sickening, but the reader must realize that these were the intentions of Hitler, and this was what he felt towards the Jewish race. I do not in any way support the actions of Hitler in any way, I am simply providing evidence to prove my case, be advised.
Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting) The following quotation is from a shorthand transcript.
This is the first demand we must raise and do [reversal of the Versailles Treaty provisions]: that our people be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, that Germany be once again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all those who want to join Germany. (Applause)
And the fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you [Austrians] as far as our programme is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.
For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)
Source: D Irving, The War Path: Hitler's Germany 1933-1939. Papermac, 1978, p.xxi
Hitler's Conversation with Josef Hell, 1922. When Hell asked Hitler what he intended doing if he ever had full freedom of action against the Jews, his response:
If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!
(quoted in John Toland, Adolf Hitler. London: Book Club Associates, 1977, p.116)
Hitler’s Table Talk, October 1941
From the rostrum of the Reichstag, I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds and thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumor attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing.
(quoted in John Toland, Adolf Hitler. London: Book Club Associates, 1977, p.702-3)
According to the abundant evidence available, we can conclude, without a doubt that Hitler wanted Jews exterminated from Germany.
You did not prove Hitler wanted to kill a single Jew. You only proved he wanted to banish them from Germany:
Note that I am denying the credibility of your second 'quote' where Hitler supposedly says he wants to hang Jews on 'gallows'. It purports to be a statement made in a conversation ... but where is the proof this statement was ever made? Who wrote the transcript? Was it in public? Did Josef Hell report that Hitler told him this? You need to establish the credibility of this quote to satisfy your burden of proof.
To answer my opponent’s question, I found the quote in a biography on Hitler titled: Adolf Hitler by John Toland. Joseph Hell was a journalist at the time for the weekly newspaper Der Gerade Weg. He asked Hitler the question and that was his response.
I found some more evidence of Hitler’s true intent.
Europe cannot find peace until the Jewish question has been solved. …One thing I should like to say on this day [the sixth anniversary of his being appointed Chancellor of the Reich] which may be memorable for others as well as for us Germans. In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet and have usually been ridiculed for it. … Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshivization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
(Hitler's Speech to the Reichstag, 30 January, 1939)
What you have is a stage of progressive steps whereby this proto-genocidal notion becomes converted then into policies of outright genocide, in which Hitler is absolutely crucial and central in providing authorization for this. But the actual practical steps are taken by his leading figures in the police – by Himmler, the head of the SS and the German Police, and by Heydrich, the head of the Security Police. But if you want to use a building metaphor you could say that Himmler was the architect of the ‘Final Solution’, Heydrich was maybe the master builder, but it needed somebody to commission the plan, and that was Hitler. So Hitler is there and the proto-genocidal then genocidal intent is there all the way through. But the actual policies, of course, take time to materialize and develop and shape up.
Professor Sir Ian Kershaw, British Historian, leading expert in studies on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany in an interview with WW2History.com
I think Hitler is central to all of this…'I think Hitler is central to all of this,' agrees Professor Mary Fulbrook. 'I think there’s no doubt about Hitler’s own views being central to this... Because he is the legitimation that is always used. I mean, the Fuehrer is the legitimatory figurehead for all of this, and whenever we look at any particular instance it is always what the Fuehrer wishes which is the legitimatory fig-leaf around the whole thing. Even when people have some doubts about the wisdom of what they’re doing, he is the legitimatory figurehead here and Himmler is putting it into effect in particular ways. I think without Himmler things would have been different too, but Himmler, Heydrich and so on are putting things into effect, but it is seen as the Fuehrer Befehl [Fuehrer order] and that is what’s appealed to in the lower level documents. And one key staging post in this 'Fuehrer Befehl' was Hitler’s speech in December 1941 in the aftermath of the entry of American and Japan into the conflict – and the consequent creation of a truly ‘world war.
Mary Fulbrook, Professor of German History at University College London and noted Author
If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.
Adolf Hitler: “Mein Kampf” (1924) p.620
“...The sole German objective in the region will be to liquidate all Jews who live in Arab countried under the patronage of Great Britain.”
Heinrich Himmler, Journal, orders from Adolf Hitler
"I was present at the session of the Reichstag of 30th January 1939, when Hitler assured us that in case of a war, not the Germans, but the Jews would be annihilated. This dictum was pronounced with such certainty that I would not have felt permitted to question his intention to carry it through. He repeated this announcement of his intentions on 30th January 1942, in a speech I also know of: The war would not end, as the Jews imagined, by the extinction of European-Aryan peoples, but it would result in the annihilation of the Jews. This repetition of his words of 30th January 1939 was not unique. He would often remind his entourage of the importance of this dictum…When speaking of the victims of the bomb raids, particularly after the massive attacks on Hamburg in Summer 1943, he again and again reiterated that he would avenge these victims on the Jews; just as if the air-terror against the civilian population actually suited him in that it furnished him with a belated substitute motivation for a crime decided upon long ago and emanating from quite different layers of his personality. Just as if he wanted to justify his own mass murders with these remarks.”
Albert Speer; one of Hitler’s closest confidents, Minister of Armaments in the Third Reich, Nuremberg Trials
I have provided numerous articles of evidence, from Hitler’s closest associates and advisers, to experts and proffessors, and even Hitler himself, all saying the same thing; Hitler wanted to kill Jews.
The quote my opponent claims is from Joseph Hell has zero credibility. All Google search results for this alleged journalist are in the context of him attributing that quote to Hitler. Joseph Hell, by all appearances, is a figure who pops into the historical record once, serves his purpose of getting Hitler to incriminate himself, and then disappears. This fake quote cannot be used as evidence.
It's not even in Hitler's style of speech, anyway. It must be admitted that Hitler, no matter how much you dislike him, was an eloquent man. Take this quote from Mein Kamf, for example:
Tell me, does that really sound like a man who would describe (to a stranger, no less) a personal fantasy of hanging Jews on gallows "until they stink"? And why would he declare hanging to be the only means to be used for exterminating all Jews in Germany? Why not just shoot them? Hanging makes no sense. It'd take too much time and effort, which the Germans didn't have to spare while fighting the world's superpowers, the Allied Forces. Also is the fact that no one, whether he accept the Holocaust as a historical event or not, has ever claimed Hitler actually employed gallows. This quote is pure fabrication. Sensational, perhaps, but fabrication nonetheless. The journalist, Joseph Hell, seems to be a fabrication too.
This is not the sort of concrete, self-incrimination you need to prove your case. According to Holocaust history expert, Hans Mommsen, this quote should be understood in the context of the time, not as a proof of genocidal intent, but:
You see, Hitler's problem was that he couldn't afford to expel all the Jews out of Germany (his Final Solution), so he made a rhetorical threat to the world that if they didn't accept the Jews emigrating from Germany into their countries, the Jews would die.
This is proven by the fact that previously, in the same exact speech, Hitler complained that even though there was "enough space for settlement ... countries suddenly refuse to recieve Jews, using all possible excuses." It's also similar to a tactic employed by another Nazi, Hermann Esser, who threatened to kill half a million Jews if the French dared to invade Germany.(1) Such a threat would have been completely pointless if they planned on killing the Jews all along.
The Jews were being used as a sort of blackmail. But Hitler didn't actually want to kill them. If he did want to, and in fact carried it out, then where is the written order from Hitler commanding such an atrocity? The fact such a document doesn't exist is telling.
This is just a quote from a historian asserting that Hitler had "genocidal intent." But where is the proof? This is nothing but an appeal to authority; a fallacy, plain and simple. The reference to the "Final Solution" was, in reality, a plan to expel the Jews from Germany. But this historian pretends it was actually a plan for mass murder ... without proof! Proof, please.
Hitler's desire to force the Jews to emigrate is well documented. Not so for his (alleged) desire for mass murder.
Read the quote in context: https://www.archive.org...
All Hitler is saying is that he wish it were Jews that had died in WWI instead of Germans. There is no desire to kill Jews expressed, implicit nor explicit.
This is a completely fabricated quote. A quick Google search shows you carelessly copied and pasted it with the wrong citation; it is alleged in forums to be a statement from Hitler to the Muslim Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941 ... not a quote from Heinrich Himmler's journal, as you claim. But it never happened! If it did, the Jewish Virtual Library would surely have included it in their description of that dialogue: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
They don't; proof it never occured. That would have pounced on this as proof of Hitler's blood lust if they had even the flimsiest evidence it were real.
"Emil Lachout was a lieutenant in the Military Police Service in Austria in 1948. His job was to accompany the Military Police and members of the Allied War Crimes Commission during the arrests of alleged war criminals to ensure that the suspects were not tortured or abused."(2)
A copy of a letter of his affirming that the Allies used torture to extract false confessions is still in existence today. You can see it here: http://codoh.com... (scroll down)
What's funny is the complete version of the alleged confession is here(3) and reads:
Hitler never intended to mass murder Jews. Only deport them. He was concerned at the evil he percieved being inflicted on his countrymen by a Zionist elite, but let his insuing outrage spiral out of control into a racism and hatred toward all Jews in general. It's inexcusable, but doesn't automatically mean he was a genocidal maniac.
Please note that no further submission of evidence is permitted since I won't be able to respond, and my opponent's only job in this last round is to defend his prior evidences and arguments.
(1) http://www.jstor.org...;*Register for a free account to read more pages after the first
Joseph Hell Conversation
Joseph Hell was a journalist that interviewed Hitler for his newspaper. He wrote down Hitler’s exact words from the questions he asked. You can see his exact words here:
Con hasn’t brought up any evidence or any reason of why this was not a legitimate conversation, merely claims. Con can deny it all he wants, but I have the evidence on my side.
Con says that he ‘searched Google’ and that he found that Hell ‘attributed that quote to Hitler’. Yet I find it odd that Con didn’t manage to cite one single source that backs up this claim. Either Con lied and is just hoping that we wouldn't look into it, or he merely forgot to cite them. So I decided to do my own research and found no sources that back up Con’s claim. Google it yourself, I visited about 20 different websites and none of them say what Con says they say. I actually found the exact oppositel; numerous websites and books backing up the legitimacy of Hell's interview.
Even if all this wasn’t enough, Con still has the audacity to claim that Joseph Hell never existed!
Joseph Hell, by all appearances, is a figure who pops into the historical record once, serves his purpose of getting Hitler to incriminate himself, and then disappears… the journalist, Joseph Hell, seems to be a fabrication too.
Joseph Hell was a major in the army, he was a journalist who collaborated with Dr. Fritz Gerlich, he was an editor of the weekly newspaper Der Gerade Weg. What Con says it not only an extreme exaggeration, but also a lie in the face of abundant evidence.
Con then gives an example of Hitler’s speeches, and concludes, from his own reasoning, that it doesn’t ‘sound like Hitler’.
Con then reasons that Hitler didn’t say this because ‘shooting is more effective than hanging’. Con thinks that because shooting Jews would be easier than hanging them, Hitler never said this. Hitler was merely portraying his desire to kill all the Jews, and portrayed it in a way to encompass his burning hate for the Jews
Besides, what Con says is a red herring anyways. It is still clear that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews, by hanging or by shooting. If it wasn’t the last round, I would remind Con to stay on topic, and not commit fallacies.
"I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers ... succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will [be] the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
Con attempts to defeat this quote by quoting an expert. I click on Con’s link to the evidence and it says,
JSTOR could not retrieve the requested item because the link does not resolve to any existing content.
I don’t see how we are supposed to believe Con’s evidence if it doesn’t exist. Even if Con hadn’t fabricated this quote, he is still a hypocrite. Later on in his response, he criticizes me for quoting experts, yet then he does the same thing! Hilarious! Con’s argument here amounts to absolutely nothing.
Con then gives more examples, all from the same source, which is nonexistent.
Hitler didn't actually want to kill them. If he did want to, and in fact carried it out, then where is the written order from Hitler commanding such an atrocity? The fact such a document doesn't exist is telling.
At first the reader might believe Con’s statement as convincing, yet any research completely contradicts his claim.
Even if we ignore the aforementioned evidence for why Hitler never issued a written Final
Solution order and hypothetically suppose that one did at some point exist, its absence from the
historical record can still be explained as being due to the large-scale destruction of documents and other physical evidence of the Holocaust by the Nazis in the waning days of the war. As their impending defeat became increasingly clear in 1944 and into 1945, the Nazi regime began a desperate undertaking to destroy all documentary evidence of their various crimes against humanity, including internal reports, personal correspondence, and various propaganda materials.
You would think Con would realize this exact document would be the first thing they would destroy.
Here Con accuses me of an appeal to authority, when he does the same exact thing and criticizes me for it. But we don’t even know if his appeal authority was real either. If Con is going to disallow my appeal to authority, he must disallow his own, which gives me this argument. If he allows appeal to authorities, then I lose this point, but win the other point. Whichever way I win a point, and if I win one point I win, I have won!
Con then asks me for proof of Hitler's intent on mass murder,
How about the fact that, Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf Hoss, and Heinrich Himmler all document it in their private diaries that correlate in Hitler giving the order for genocide of the Jews? Or that while all the mass murder of 6 million Jews was going on, Hitler never gave the order to stop it? He obviously knew about it, and could stop it, yet never gave the order to stop. Because he wanted it to happen.
Con doesn't mention which quote he is talking about so I can't address it.
Con implies that I was deceitful and that I took the quote out of context, and then tells you to find it in context and scroll through the entire book to find it. The quote was in context.
Scroll to the 40th paragraph starts with, “Any idea of real resistance to France…”
This is another example of Con trying to be deceitful, he's hoping that you will just believe him and not look into it yourself.
Con claims that there is no desire to kill Jews. I ask the readers to read the sentence again,
If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.
Hitler wants to kill 15,000 Jews so that hundreds of thousands of German’s lives would not be in vain.
I did mistakenly cite this quotation, my apologies.
Yet after Con points out my mistake, he makes the claim that this quote never occurred. He then gives evidence to the jewishvirtuallibrary.com. Yet this is exactly where I got my quote, look and see, the fourth quotation. from,https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
This quote is true, evidence of such from the same site as Con uses to prove that it wasn’t. This shows that Con never read through his evidence, and was being deceitful…again.
Here Con says that this evidence is false because Albert Speer was tortured to give a false confession during the Nuremberg Trials. He then sites a website as evidence. There are two things wrong with this.
1. The article that Con cites as evidence of his claim is Institute for Historical Review (IHR), an American Holocaust Denial organization, and it was written by Mark Weber (https://en.wikipedia.org...), director of the Institute for Historical Review. This is the most biased source Con could possibly use.
2. Con tells us that it is ‘obvious that Albert Speer was tortured’ yet when you read his source, they never mention he was tortured at all. Look for yourself:
Con has no evidence that Albert Speer was ever involved in the torture, and therefore can’t deny it as a credible source, it is upheld!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 64bithuman 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't directly prove Hitlers true intent in the first round from what I could tell, however, in later rounds, Pro uses several primary sources with direct quotes from Adolf himself, such as, "...the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". Cons response to this rather damning evidence isn't adequate, to say the least: "It's not even in Hitler's style of speech..." That's far from proof, and a few of the sources that Con might have used to defend his side didn't even work. A series of poor defenses for overwhelming evidences brought up by Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.